BOOK 23_1950-05-15 to 1952-04-21

Browse Search

2 Attorney presented petition in opposition to the Use Permit. Parking, setbacks and deed restrictions were discussed. A resolution to grant the Use Permit was lost on a roll call vote. A resolution was then passed to deny the Use Permit, ATTORNEY Wm HENDERSON, 118 Green Oaks Drive, Atherton, represented member os the Church and in his appeal stated, (1) building conformed to architecture of neighborhood (2) church to have seating capacity for 280 persons on 3/4 acre of ground, and (3) provided for off-street parking of 60 cars, and as the, ordinance provided for churches in R-1 Districts the authority was up to the Council whether or not this church would be�detrimental to the neighborhood. Petition was on file of over 430 names in favor of the church of which 8Oo were non -church members. Reasons mentioned by the Planning Commission did not enter into the queation, that parking lot was an eye -sore and it would be unwise to build here. The church took the position of asking the Council to consider the purpose of the ordinance which provided churches in residential areas and if the Council were to back a policy exercised against the church in this instance it should be uniform and they were confident this would be done indiscriminately. MR. J. MORTIMER CLARK, REALTOR, 331 Hazel,Street, Millbrae, was introduced by Attorney Henderson. Mr, Clark had examined the plans before the meetings. He was an expert, having served as a State Real Estate Commissioner from 1934 to 1939, had served on the Planning Commission a number of years, was Vice President of the California League of Municipalities for a number of years. He stated that provision was made in planning for churches in residential areas, that this tended to improve property in those areas and increased the value of adjoining property. He also served two terms as President of the American Institute, of Appraisers and was qualified in the State Court and District Court of Appeals. He was not a member of the church but asked that the church be allowed to build in that location. BISHOP L. H. OSTERLOH, 729 Acacia Street, owner and taxpayer of property in Redwood City, stated they tried to purchase different lots, but as soon as the people knew of their interest in property, blocks were put in their way. This property was more centrally located in Redwood City, about 1/3 of their members living in San Carlos. They were'advised by the Building Inspector at, the time of purchase in 1947 that there were, no laws to prohibit building chapel in an R-1 District. Since the pur- chase of this property he felt sure that people built nearby with the full knowledge that a church was being contemplated. He indicated thae they wished to do all they could for the people of their faith, for others and Redwood City as a whole. There would be no bells or chimes to disturb the neighborhood. Services were held from 9 AM to 10 and 10:30 to 12 on 00unda7s. Tuesday meeting was from 7:30 PM to 9:00 and Thursday a group of about 10 met who were interested in genealogy., They did not feel that meetings of worship alone was sufficient to take care of the Young people, that they had a greater obligation to the young people of the church and City in order to promote good citizenship. Other churches were built in Redwood City where areas were much closer to homes, and no parking space whatever. If the Council turned doom the request for use permit they could not but feel they were being discriminated against, that their decision would not only affect building of churches here but in other cities. He felt that if the people of the world would do those things toward upbuilding of churches much more happiness would be found in the world today. 1'" pobt ,^1, B 12, 1 EOR COM KAYO COOK J 4 2 �j I . T I v IIIyf LII 2 Attorney presented petition in opposition to the Use Permit. Parking, setbacks and deed restrictions were discussed. A resolution to grant the Use Permit was lost on a roll call vote. A resolution was then passed to deny the Use Permit, ATTORNEY Wm HENDERSON, 118 Green Oaks Drive, Atherton, represented member os the Church and in his appeal stated, (1) building conformed to architecture of neighborhood (2) church to have seating capacity for 280 persons on 3/4 acre of ground, and (3) provided for off-street parking of 60 cars, and as the, ordinance provided for churches in R-1 Districts the authority was up to the Council whether or not this church would be�detrimental to the neighborhood. Petition was on file of over 430 names in favor of the church of which 8Oo were non -church members. Reasons mentioned by the Planning Commission did not enter into the queation, that parking lot was an eye -sore and it would be unwise to build here. The church took the position of asking the Council to consider the purpose of the ordinance which provided churches in residential areas and if the Council were to back a policy exercised against the church in this instance it should be uniform and they were confident this would be done indiscriminately. MR. J. MORTIMER CLARK, REALTOR, 331 Hazel,Street, Millbrae, was introduced by Attorney Henderson. Mr, Clark had examined the plans before the meetings. He was an expert, having served as a State Real Estate Commissioner from 1934 to 1939, had served on the Planning Commission a number of years, was Vice President of the California League of Municipalities for a number of years. He stated that provision was made in planning for churches in residential areas, that this tended to improve property in those areas and increased the value of adjoining property. He also served two terms as President of the American Institute, of Appraisers and was qualified in the State Court and District Court of Appeals. He was not a member of the church but asked that the church be allowed to build in that location. BISHOP L. H. OSTERLOH, 729 Acacia Street, owner and taxpayer of property in Redwood City, stated they tried to purchase different lots, but as soon as the people knew of their interest in property, blocks were put in their way. This property was more centrally located in Redwood City, about 1/3 of their members living in San Carlos. They were'advised by the Building Inspector at, the time of purchase in 1947 that there were, no laws to prohibit building chapel in an R-1 District. Since the pur- chase of this property he felt sure that people built nearby with the full knowledge that a church was being contemplated. He indicated thae they wished to do all they could for the people of their faith, for others and Redwood City as a whole. There would be no bells or chimes to disturb the neighborhood. Services were held from 9 AM to 10 and 10:30 to 12 on 00unda7s. Tuesday meeting was from 7:30 PM to 9:00 and Thursday a group of about 10 met who were interested in genealogy., They did not feel that meetings of worship alone was sufficient to take care of the Young people, that they had a greater obligation to the young people of the church and City in order to promote good citizenship. Other churches were built in Redwood City where areas were much closer to homes, and no parking space whatever. If the Council turned doom the request for use permit they could not but feel they were being discriminated against, that their decision would not only affect building of churches here but in other cities. He felt that if the people of the world would do those things toward upbuilding of churches much more happiness would be found in the world today. 1'" pobt ,^1, B 12, 1 EOR COM KAYO COOK